The yes man and the nowhere party

It is understandable that the No campaigners in the euro-referendum, if we ever have one, should want to prevent the Conservative Party from taking over their cause. This is the view of Mr George Eustice, the director of the campaign. But Mr Eustice, who had not previously (as the cricket writers used to put it) troubled the scorers, arrived comparatively late at the wicket. He came out to support the views of his predecessor, Mr Dominic Cummings, who likewise occupies a fairly lowly position in the political batting order. Mr Cummings has bettered himself by becoming Mr Iain Duncan Smith's "director of strategy" at Conservative Central Office. As an apparatchik he fills a quite different position from Mr Eustice's. It is worth quoting what he told The Independent exclusively last week:

"The biggest potential threat to the pound's survival is the Conservative Party. If the [party] were to define the anti-euro campaign and articulate its message as it has in the past, then Blair has a rare opportunity to win a referendum. It is difficult for some [Tories] to accept but nevertheless true that, for many people, just about the only thing less popular than the euro is the Tory party."

There were what our great newspapers like to call "red faces" in Smith Square. The Times, perhaps in a fit of pique at being scooped, headlined its story the next day "Tory leader to head anti-euro campaign". This did not seem to be wholly borne out by what appeared underneath. Mr Duncan Smith had let it be known that he intended to play a "prominent role" merely in the campaign. Mr David Davis, with that slight vulgarity of phrase which serves him so well, said the Conservatives would be "upfront on this". Mr Cummings has apparently survived in his job because of his value to Mr Duncan Smith in the endeavour to display the Conservatives before our astonished gaze as the champions of "vulnerable people".

His worry goes back to the 1975 referendum on whether we should stay in the Common Market, as it was then called. Those who urged our exit embodied some of the finest oratorical talent in the country: Tony Benn, Barbara Castle, Michael Foot, Enoch Powell. But they possessed one fatal disadvantage. They were all, in Mr Tony Blair's words, "weird, weird, weird". His description was of the then Conservative front bench. Have the Tories become less weird since the departure of Mr William Hague, say, and Miss Ann Widdecombe, and their replacement by Mr Duncan Smith and Mr Michael Howard? Is the weirdness quotient significantly lowered? It is difficult to say, though the substitution of Mr Harry Enfield is not necessarily an improvement.

In the successive overtures of governments towards Europe, from Harold Macmillan's unsuccessful attempt to join until the Maastricht Treaty, our citizens have been told three things: that it is in our economic interest to do whatever the government is proposing, that the change will have no effect on our constitutional arrangements and that it is not only in our interest but inevitable, the way of the world.

So far, the policy towards the euro has conformed to the traditional approach in all three respects. It has been consistent in a fourth respect as well. It is all being done grudgingly, reluctantly and late in the day, as someone with a tedious but necessary task to perform will put it off for as long as possible.

It would, however, be a mistake to suppose that the euro-referendum will be conducted on precisely the same lines as previous adventures, with dishonesty by the Government ("this is about the economy and nothing else") and surly acquiescence by the voters. For one thing, to refuse to go into something is easier than to get out, the question 27 years ago. And, for another, the referendum does not place government in such an advantageous position as it occupied in 1975. This is the result of a report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and Mr Jack Straw's consequential Act in 2000.

This denies the Government, as such, any role at all in the proceedings. Public funds cannot be expended, except over free postage and the hire of public premises and the like. The minister in charge is Ms Yvette Cooper (Mrs Ed Balls), who was dispatched to the Lord Chancellor's office for this very purpose at the last reshuffle. Previously the task had been in the hands of Mr Stephen Byers, now sadly no longer with us. Mr Blair was caught out about this at Prime Minister's Questions only the other day. He thought it was the Home Secretary. I must confess this was what I thought too.

Mr Straw's Act provides that a referendum can be activated if a Bill is put forward to this effect: it does not have to become law. The Secretary of State must, however, place an Order before Parliament in addition to a Bill. Quite who this would be I do not know. I am fairly sure it could not be Ms Cooper because she is not a Secretary of State; or not yet. This is virtually the only power that ministers possess.

The referendum itself is conducted by the Electoral Commission, whose members are Mr Sam Younger (the chairman), Ms Pamela Gordon, Mr Glyn Mathias, Sir Neil McIntosh, Mr Karamjit Singh and Professor Graham Zellick: as upstanding a quango as you could ever hope to meet in a stroll down Whitehall. The commission authorises what are called "permitted participants", which can be political parties, individuals or bodies – but not governments. It also chooses "designated organisations". These can be reimbursed to a maximum of £600,000 each. It is they who carry out the campaigning. A political party can contribute to the designated organisation of its choice, depending on its share of the vote at the previous election. Thus Labour can contribute up to £5m, as it polled well over 30 per cent. So can the Conservatives, who polled just above that figure. But the Liberal Democrats, who polled 18 per cent, come into the 10 to 20 per cent group. They are accordingly limited to £3m, which may come as a relief to them.

Dissension is not, as we know, confined to the No campaign. We witnessed the same phenomenon in the Yes campaign a few years ago. Then Mr Blair's young ruffians compelled the organisers to turn the question into whether we should stay in Europe rather than join the euro. This was undertaken on wholly political grounds: to embarrass Mr Hague and to avoid alarming the voters. It will be the same again. Or, rather, it may not be quite the same. Mr Blair may learn that, just as Mr Duncan Smith is not welcome to run the No campaign, he is not allowed to control the Yes campaign either.